Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is.
I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

What the ID Leadership says About ID and Evolution

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."- Dr Michael Behe

Dr Behe has repeatedly confirmed he is OK with common ancestry. And he has repeatedly made it clear that ID is an argument against materialistic evolution (see below), ie necessity and chance.

The theory of intelligent design (ID) neither requires nor excludes speciation- even speciation by Darwinian mechanisms. ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable. This is a conceptual possibility within ID, but it is not the only possibility. ID precludes neither significant variation within species nor the evolution of new species from earlier forms. Rather, it maintains that there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce. At the same time, it holds that intelligence is fully capable of supplementing such mechanisms, interacting and influencing the material world, and thereby guiding it into certain physical states to the exclusion of others. To effect such guidance, intelligence must bring novel information to expression inside living forms. Exactly how this happens remains for now an open question, to be answered on the basis of scientific evidence. The point to note, however, is that intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way intelligent design is compatible with speciation. page 109 of "The Design of Life"

and

And that brings us to a true either-or. If the choice between common design and common ancestry is a false either-or, the choice between intelligent design and materialistic evolution is a true either-or. Materialistic evolution does not only embrace common ancestry; it also rejects any real design in the evolutionary process. Intelligent design, by contrast, contends that biological design is real and empirically detectable regardless of whether it occurs within an evolutionary process or in discrete independent stages. The verdict is not yet in, and proponents of intelligent design themselves hold differing views on the extent of the evolutionary interconnectedness of organisms, with some even accepting universal common ancestry (ie Darwin’s great tree of life).
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.- Ibid page 142

And from one more pro-ID book:

Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.- page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”

Only a dishonest evotard- wait that is a repetitive as all evotards are dishonest- would say ID is anti-evolution.

Intelligent Design: An hypothesis that some natural phenomena are best explained by reference to Intelligent Causes rather than to only Material Causes. As such, Intelligent Design is the scientific disagreement with, and the falsifying hypothesis for, the claims of Chemical and Darwinian Evolution that the apparent design of certain natural phenomena is just an illusion. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/Statement_of_Objectives_Feb_12_07.pdf

The theory of intelligent design, as I understand, you’re not inquiring, but we endorse that decision as a policy decision. Also, is an historical scientific theory that raises larger philosophical implications, so the two are equivalent in that respect, and they are, in fact, with respect to their attempts to explain the appearance of design in biological systems, they are competitor hypotheses.

If you think that's where the evidence points, then I fail to see why you have published this evidence and earned a Nobel Prize.

Oh wait, it's not worth your effort, that was your excuse last time as I recall.

You know there's a money prize for the Nobel too right?

Whatever.

I can make this more clear, but there's not much point. I mean, even a four-year old can see that if you have two brown furred mice and two white furred mice and the two white furred mice are eaten, then it's not very likely that you have many more white furred mice.

No this is NOT about macro-evolution. That's not what we are talking about here. This is purely about natural selection. Whether you see if it has any impact or not doesn't matter. It is trivial to show that selection can make massive changes in anatomy in a very short time.

Kevin:'That's OK, because you change the definitions of words to suit you.

Liar. Why is it that you cannot produce any evidence to support that claim? Coward.

Kevin:If you think that's where the evidence points, then I fail to see why you have published this evidence and earned a Nobel Prize.

What is the peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate otherwise?

Why can't you post any evidence taht says otherwise? Coward.

Kevin:I mean, even a four-year old can see that if you have two brown furred mice and two white furred mice and the two white furred mice are eaten, then it's not very likely that you have many more white furred mice.

You don'tunderstand naturl selection. For natural selection the differential reproduction has to be due to heritable variation.

So it would depend on the environment. For example two white mice in a jungle would stick out more than the two brown mice.

Joe, if I give you two populations of organisms, can you tell me which one evolved via natural selection and which one evolved via artificial selection.

No, you can't. It's that simple. Selection is selection.

Joe, once again, you have made a claim, yet you cannot back it up.

You do realize that EVERY TIME you say, "Why don't you back up your statements?" it's because you've made a claim that has zero support.

This thread, this entire blog isn't about evolution, or even ID. It's about Joe trying to be smart.

I'm not doing your homework for you Joe. You could type a couple of words into google scholar and see thousands of supporting papers.

You might even do that, but you will never find the evidence you want Joe.

Because you will not accept and evidence, Joe. You're too busy trying to explain it away to actually look at it.

You hold science to meet your expectations, but your expectations are based on strawmen. You refuse to hold ID to the same requirements.

You have pointed out that Dawkins said something in his book. If you had read the book, you would have realized that the entire book was explaining what evolution really is. But you only quote that one sentence of his.

You do the same thing with ID. Quoting what you want to hear and ignoring what else they say. The quotes I provided from the ID leaders say that ID is anti-evolution Joe. Look at what they have said "opposition", "competitor hypotheses".

Your English skills really are poor. I'm sorry you had such a terrible education. Where you home schooled?

Natural selection is nothing more than differential reproduction due to heritable variation. Differential reproduction just means that some will (may) out-reproduce others. And if that differential reproduction is due to some heritable variation then you have natural selection. The heritable variation doesn't even have to be genetic as behavioral characteristics can be passed down also.

And all of that depends on the environment as what is beneficial or working good enough in one environment may not be beneficial nor working good enough in another environment.

And that brings us to another point- whatever works "good enough" gets kept as natural selection basically eliminates that which doesn't work good enough.

Does natural selection have a direction? Only if survivability is a direction.